Legal Opinion · Dissent

Coxe v. Coxe

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 22, 1976No. 107Published

1DissentSpaeth, Judge

This appeal presents the issue of the scope of our review in a divorce case.

Judge CERCONE, citing Gehris v. Gehris, 233 Pa.Super. 144, 334 A.2d 753 (1975), states that “[i]t is well-settled that in divorce cases, the evidence must be considered de novo at every stage of review; and that review extends to questions of credibility.” Majority opinion at 1297. He then demonstrates by his discussion of the evidence that by this statement of the law he means that our scope of review is entirely uninhibited; thus he pays no attention to the master’s report. Judge HOFFMAN, on the other hand, also…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Commonwealth v. ClairSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. Esenwein v. EsenweinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  4. Middleton v. MiddletonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
  5. McKrell v. McKrellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API